With some advice from campaigners on the ground we've drawn up a list of some seats that will determine whether Britain wakes up to a Conservative government on Friday morning.

We've listed a seat in all English regions so most readers will have at least one seat within travelling distance. I hope readers in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales will also get involved by contacting their local parties.

For each of the seats below we've provided a link to MyConservatives. This will allow you to telephone canvass these key seats if you cannot physically get to them.

The Independent today declares that Ashcroft's war-chest targets marginals. Closer examination of the story reveals that the vast bulk of the money spent in target seats is actually raised locally:

"The Tories have spent £6m over two years in the parliamentary seats
that hold the key to general election victory... A drive for votes
masterminded, and largely funded, by the Conservative deputy chairman,
Lord Ashcroft, has seen party headquarters pump more than £1.1m into
the coffers of constituency parties in Britain's most marginal seats.
Tory activists raised another £5m locally to build up huge cash
reserves in seats they need to win with a small swing."

CCHQ has given target seats £1,145,484 over the two years while local associations have raised £4,983,460.

The Independent therefore reveals that local Associations are financing 81% of their campaigns. That's not the impression given by the newspaper. The Independent implies that the money from CCHQ all comes from Ashcroft but there's no evidence of that. I suspect it comes from a variety of donors.

The Independent set out to prove one thing and they've proven another. I suspect that not more than one quarter of the money from CCHQ (5% of our total campaign spend in marginal seats) is funded by Lord Ashcroft. 5% is a significant contribution but the party is not dependent on his generosity in the way that the media likes to suggest.

I wonder when The Independent will have a front page splash looking at Labour candidates' dependence on union money? I won't hold my breath.

Key to the Tory strategy is an attempt to paint the SNP as "ineffective" at Westminster. An internal Tory poll poll of 1,000 Scottish voters found that 74% agreed that the SNP stood up for Scotland but was not effective when it came to Westminster.

"If we get a confused election result it is going to be that much more difficult to pull the economy out of recession. Scots are voting to elect a British government and the only party that can provide an alternative to five more years of Labour government are the Conservatives."

Team Cameron have a high opinion of McLetchie and are considering putting him in the Lords to coordinate a Conservative government's relationship with Scotland should David Cameron become Prime Minister. Mr Cameron has already promised regular meetings with Annabel Goldie in those circumstances.

Recent polling suggested that the Tories still have a mountain to climb north of the border.

Interesting report in The Times suggesting that CCHQ is adopting a cautious approach to its use of resources.

In a move that may be unconnected to the modest trimming of the Tory lead in national opinion polls the Conservative Party is "quietly withdrawing resources from some “landslide” seats to maximise David Cameron’s chances of winning a workable majority."

The Times also suggests that Liberal Democrat MPs may be harder to oust than CCHQ had hoped. It suggests that, for example, the party fears Cheadle may not turn blue:

"Cheadle, currently held by Liberal Democrats with a majority of just under 4,000, is among seats no longer regarded as likely to fall despite a well-funded, two-year campaign to woo key groups of voters. Party strategists privately admit that some incumbent MPs, particularly Lib Dems, are putting up fiercer-than-expected resistance."

I should imagine our energetic candidate in Cheadle, Ben Jeffreys, will be choking on his cornflakes as he reads that.

Some working class Labour voters are also reportedly returning to the red column as anger over the 10p tax band diminshes.

I have not yet been able to raise a contact at CCHQ to test their reaction to this piece.

Tim Montgomerie

> Last year I asked for your views on whether the Tories should direct more resources into 'landslide targets'.

Last Saturday we discussed Tory targeting strategies. Today, Cllr Leah Fraser, the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Wallasey, calls for a distinction between immediate target seats and more medium term targets.

Every book and manual you read about winning elections talks about the need for targeting. Whether it’s polling districts in a ward; wards in a borough or parliamentary constituencies. In days of limited resources – people and money – it makes sense for their efforts to go where they can make the greatest difference.

The focus is, rightly, on the next General Election. If we break down the seats purely on the basis of that election – we have the ones we hold, the ones we can win and those we won’t win, even with a 20% lead nationally.

Now, it would be crazy to pour scarce resources into seats which have a notional Conservative majority. If the local Party cannot hold a seat in the current climate, there must either be a very strong local factor against us or that association is not performing and no amount of additional resources will help. Money spent badly is worse than money not spent at all.

Those seats we can win and ‘need’ to form the next Government are most easily assessed via the swing required for us to win, compared to last time round.

These are the seats which have, pretty much, selected their candidates and are working towards detailed, month-by-month campaign plans. The Party’s focus on selecting early for target seats is already paying off in many places. It certainly made a difference in Crewe & Nantwich.

It's October 2000 and George W Bush is looking good for victory in his battle with Al Gore. Republican strategists get giddy and start believing that they can win California. They divert funds from states like Florida and buy TV ads in the Golden State. The rest is, of course, a history of hanging chads. Al Gore won California easily but Bush only prevailed in Florida after numerous recounts and legal actions.

In this political climate should the party still be spending money in Harlow (Lab maj 357) and Battersea (Lab maj 336)? Should more money be directed to the seats that would win us a majority of one? Should some resources start going to seats that could win us a majority of 100? Should serious money go to some high profile battles against Cabinet ministers like Alistair Darling and Jack Straw, distracting them in the process? [The Tory version of the LibDems' (unsuccessful) decapitation strategy.]

The veterans of the 1997 and 2001 campaigns can't quite believe the current polls. They want targeting strategy to remain cautious. Others believe that the next General Election represents a historic opportunity to smash Labour. Reduced to 250 seats (or even less) the bolder targeters believe that Labour can be condemned to opposition for two parliaments if they are hit hard enough now.

More money is becoming available to Tory budgeters and it might be that the party could resource all seats (but is that a cop out?). There is still determination to flood LibDem/ Tory seats with money despite recent evidence that the LibDem vote is very soft in the south. Much will depend upon intensive polling of individual battlegrounds. The party won't rely on national headline polls to make these judgments.